Trump calls the ‘second amendment people’ to arms, or to the polls; which is what the Trump campaign would have us believe
My whatever                                     

Aug 9 2016

Wilmington, North Carolina:

At Wilmington today Mr Trump appeared to issue a veiled suggestion inciting ‘The second amendment people’ to insurgency. So the speech at the rally in Wilmington NC was caught on video, and is now appearing on many outlets, with reporters spinning whatever bias they wish to with it. So, the direct quote as seen by this reporter (yours truly), to wit:

“Hillary wants to essentially Abolish the second amendment; by the way, if she gets to pick her judges, *shrugs* nothing you can do folks” Mr Trump continued; “Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know”

First, let’s pick this apart contextually! As he relates, the statement, “Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd amendment,” this has already been fact checked, and it is false. I check the headlines daily; especially the political news, I also check the election section of several media outlets. From what I have noted, there has been no reporting of statements from Mrs Clinton along these lines. Second, in the context of the statement it has Mrs Clinton, in the White-house, picking judges, that presumably trample all over our rights to bear arms. Then immediately following that, the statement; “Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.” This appears to be a reference to ‘the right to bear arms,’ following that with “maybe there is, I don’t know” it suggests that Mr Trump is issuing a coded message to the 2nd amendment people to do so, bear arms, and presumably use them. The campaign acted swiftly to give a better spin to Mr Trumps statement, releasing the following statement;

“Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” said Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Jason Miller. “And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”

Now this is all well and good, come out with something before Mr Trump had the chance to double down on his rhetoric. But as I related in my contextual analyses, this doesn’t fit with Mr Trumps statement. First the statement refers to a Clinton administration already in progress; second, Mr Trump has shown his ability to turn a slogan into a campaign moment, viz “Don’t say lock her up; vote! He didn’t go there; instead making a veiled suggestion, that there may be need for ‘bearing arms,’ to preserve our god given right to kill something. That’s what firearms most oft do, kill something. Let’s take another look at Mr Trumps character as characterized by some of his other public statements; “I would bring back waterboarding and even more extreme enhanced interrogation methods” “it’s okay to kill the families of the enemy” “it just may be that a nuclear preemptive strike is the way to go”. It’s been said before; ‘you can judge a man by the words that come out of his mouth,’ Based on these remarks, the candidate has established a history of inciting violence. Mr Trump has been a public figure for decades, his character has been on display for decades.  Is this the man we want to be the Commander in Chief, the man with the nuclear codes at his fingers night and day? You decide!

Get out the vote





Trump foresees failure, claims it will be due to vote fraud.

What was that I said, I meant something else
What was that I said, I meant something else [Getty Images}
8-9-2016 Jeffrey C McMahan

Over the last week DJTrump has been telling us he has foreseen his doom. Claiming it will be due to the ‘Clinton Machine’ engineering some kind of scheme to commit fraud on a national level. In the national election system no less. I’ve observed the man speaking on a national broadcast network musing about that they’ll be people casting ten ballets, then he doubled down and related that it would be one hundred ballets cast by one person; leaving the polling place, turning around and returning to cast another vote for the ‘Clinton apparatus, no doubt. Perhaps in a following segment he claimed a great big fat wall would have prevented it; I didn’t see it though, so my opinion doesn’t count for much in that regard.

According to this observer many sound bites spew from the man in question; most of them appear to be off-the-cuff nonsense. Most of them can’t be written off as ‘thee liberal media machine’ spinning his antics, his comings and goings, his bombastic rhetoric; with its (the liberal media machines) peculiar bias; as most have been caught on video and make the rounds of the nefarious ‘lame stream media.’ Even the more conservative media outlets disseminate the same content, so that tends to add some validity to the messages.

This prophetic utterance, this claim that the only way he’ll lose is due to some grand conspiracy that will ‘steal’ the show, is nonsense; the candidate will win or lose based on the merits of his broad public appeal. Not looking likely after that sentence. Bazinga! But this claim; implying that the Clinton apparatus can only win by cheating is, not only a win-win proposal for the candidate, it is also the go to argument on playgrounds throughout the nation. It’s a win, as if he loses he cans bray ‘I told you so;’ also typically heard on playgrounds; and if he wins he can go on and on about how he beat the odds against corruption and nefarious activity at the highest level. Thereby validating his curious world-view.

The real issue here, in my opinion is, not only is he running against Mrs Clinton, she also happens to be a women. That in a nutshell is the crux of the matter. That and his small hands. Hold I’ll say no more.

About that!

This dynamic, Trump vs woman, seems to be a common denominator  in the public persona of the candidate, dating back several decades at least. Just look at the size of his towers. There has to be some compensation, some method of satiating an ego twisted out of proportion in some aggrandizing fashion. The way the man projects his frailties, his weaknesses, upon others, speaks volumes to the careful observer. Admitting failure, admitting defeat, is not in the playbook, it is always the external, those ‘other(s)’ forces, that puts the boot to the throat, that keeps the man down; he builds great big beautiful golf courses, perhaps because he hasn’t been invited to join the exclusive clubs. The clubs that the real movers and shakers belong to. I think this insight, speaks to the man’s insecurities, and also contributes to his megalomania.

This claim that the vote will be rigged, is as I have said is nonsense, it also belies the fact that it is the GOP that typically uses this tactic. Note the oppressive voting laws, that have been struck down time and time again by the higher courts. Note the technique of  Gerrymandering which is the process of drawing the lines of districts to include primarily, republican voters see here and isolate districts that contain populations that are unlikely to be able to comply with the said voting laws, the oppressive ones. Besides the last election that was stolen was the 2000 election, the Bush vs Gore, election; the election ‘too close to call’ with the ‘hanging chads’ with Florida being the johnny come lately, the state that hadn’t published it’s election results, until long after I went to bed, at 11:00 pm, on the west coast; and held out for several days, examining every ballet for the aforementioned ‘hanging chads.’ Not only that but Jeb Bush happened to be the governor of Florida at that time. shenanigans I call! But that’s almost ancient history, no need to drag that through the streets. Hanging it out to dry on clotheslines across this great Nation. It’s popular to blame President Bush, it’s popular to blame President Obama, it’s so easy to blame the past for the failures of the present, so I’ll get on with the present. Which brings me back to a discussion of the candidate in question. See how I did that, the twisted and torturous trail I weave/wove.

So who gets the blame, is it the ‘Clinton apparatus’ or does it lay to rest on the shoulders of the GOP? In my opinion it is all on the GOP. The Republican voting base nominated the candidate. That’s not on the Democratic candidate, or the Democratic voting base. The Democrats did not set the platform of the RNC; the Democrat Party did nor coerce the Candidate(s) to utter the sensational public statements that has spewed from the candidate(s) mouth. After the 2012 shellacking the GOP took, the RNC, amid much hand-wringing set out to accomplish a post mortem analyse of the brawl, and come up with policies that would make the GOP winners again; one notable one was to broaden the public appeal of the GOP to include minority groups. Four years later we have what we have. And who is to blame?

You decide!